Abortion

[SuburbanFarmer]

No such opinions expressed, but nice attempt at derailment.

He's not wrong. It has nothing to do with reality.

[Speaker to Animals]

No such opinions expressed, but nice attempt at derailment.

He's not wrong. It has nothing to do with reality.

I was the one quoting the medical textbooks and trying to veer this thing back towards actual science, guy.

[Fife]

I'll go by the law & medicine. I suggest you people who have supernatural opinions get involved in a GOTV* campaign.

*Get Out The Vote

Where does SCOTUS place the marker for attachment of the 14th amendment to "persons," and why?

That's not a bar exam question anywhere, AFIK, but it should be. If it were, there would be a lot of WA lawyers fumbling about the desktop, and then staring at their shoelaces.

[Martin Hash]

The obvious fallacy of your position defies comprehension. We have legalized abortion. Period. The Law has met The Science.

[SuburbanFarmer]

No. The discussion is over when human personhood begins, not when human life begins.

Mmmkay. Well, in that case, I suspect that we're talking about the same thing. It begins at birth, does it not?

I have no idea where we should place the beginning of human personhood.

I err on the side of caution and just assume that it starts with human life, though outside of a theological discussion, that would seem like an unsatisfactory place to start.

The problem here is that no good arguments for where it should begin have been made that most people find particularly convincing. The worst arguments I see (all the time, I might add) constitute pro-aborts trying to come with arbitrary factors that make no moral distinction with respect to personhood, that really just amount to saying that human personhood begins whenever we say it does. If you are a kind of nihilist or even maybe an existentialist, you could probably take that as a formal position. That's not going to satisfy anybody on the other side, though.

Then answer my simple question:

Does human life "end" and "begin" in the process of procreation? Is there some point at which the living gametes cease to "live", and a human life "begins"?

It's a continuation of life, the seed of which is carried by the sperm and egg in question - there is no sudden "life" springing into being.

Also, again, if you make any fertilized egg a "person", then it demands the full rights of personhood, does it not?

[Fife]

The obvious fallacy of your position defies comprehension. We have legalized abortion. Period. The Law has met The Science.

Please . . . cite Roe in answering my simple question. In fact, cite anything.

[Martin Hash]

The obvious fallacy of your position defies comprehension. We have legalized abortion. Period. The Law has met The Science.

Please . . . cite Roe in answering my simple question. In fact, cite anything.

Those police that come and force screaming antiabortionists to stand off, that's the only citation I need. BTW, how many angels do dance on the head of a pin?

[katarn]

The obvious fallacy of your position defies comprehension. We have legalized abortion. Period. The Law has met The Science.

What do you mean by "The Science"?

[Fife]

How dare you challenge a Scientist on The Science?

[Fife]

The obvious fallacy of your position defies comprehension. We have legalized abortion. Period. The Law has met The Science.

Please . . . cite Roe in answering my simple question. In fact, cite anything.

Those police that come and force screaming antiabortionists to stand off, that's the only citation I need. BTW, how many angels do dance on the head of a pin?

Thanks for playing, and thanks for the thread.